NYCLU calls MSG's ticket-holder exclusions an example of surveillance dangers
New York Civil Liberties UnionNYCLU, through privacy and technology testimony by Daniel Schwarz
NYCLU cites MSG's use of facial recognition to ban ticket holders as an example of surveillance dangers requiring privacy protections.
“The widely reported deployment of facial recognition at Madison Square Garden to ban people from the stadium that had already purchased tickets ... illustrates the dangers from the growing surveillance industry and the urgent need for comprehensive privacy protections.”
Original text
Where this statement fits
James Dolan defends MSG's facial-recognition lawyer exclusions; New York officials object
In January 2023, James Dolan defended MSG Entertainment's use of facial recognition to bar lawyers at firms suing the company, saying a property owner may choose whom it serves. Letitia James and Brad Hoylman-Sigal objected that the policy punished people for pursuing legal claims. A New York appeals court later held that state law requires MSG to admit ticket holders to concerts and theatrical shows but not sporting events, with damages as the only remedy. MSG described the exclusions as a safety measure in 2025, and WIRED reported in May 2026 that MSG had revoked the tickets of a lawyer suing it.
Source and context
Original text
About this source
Daniel Schwarz testifies on behalf of the NYCLU, citing MSG as an example of surveillance risks and seeking meaningful consent and limits on use, retention and sharing.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
NYCLU submitted testimony to a City Council hearing on facial recognition in businesses.
After the quotation
The testimony also raises concerns about storing biometric data and about government surveillance.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
Why this label?
Reference point: MSG's policy of excluding lawyers at firms suing it. The NYCLU testimony says MSG's use of facial recognition to ban ticket holders illustrates the dangers of the surveillance industry. The closest alternative is that the passage only gives an example, but it attaches a negative evaluation to MSG's conduct, so it is criticism.
- Recorded on
- Published here
More from this case
Read the full caseEFF criticizes MSG's exclusions and warns they could spread to protesters
Electronic Frontier Foundation
“Madison Square Gardens was recently caught using this technology to exclude employees of a law firm that sued the venue’s parent company. ... A business could easily extend this kind of “enemies list” to people who, online or on the sidewalk outside, protest a venue’s discriminatory policies.”Read statement
Williams rejects employer-based venue exclusions
“Individuals should not be removed from a place of business, because their employer is involved in legal action against said business.”Read statement
State Bar Association calls MSG's lawyer exclusions discriminatory
New York State Bar Association
“The use of facial recognition software to exclude members of law firms from a Knicks basketball game or a Taylor Swift concert discriminates against lawyers for doing their jobs”Read statement
Share or embed this statement
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the statement page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- NYCLU calls MSG's ticket-holder exclusions an example of surveillance dangers
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/5946-nyclu-cites-msg-s-use-of-facial-recognition
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "NYCLU calls MSG's ticket-holder exclusions an example of surveillance dangers". First published: 2026-10-18. Last updated: 2026-10-18. https://disputeindex.com/events/5946-nyclu-cites-msg-s-use-of-facial-recognition